Operation Sports will have the opportunity to visit 2K Sports next week, and chat with some members of the community who are now working on NBA 2K. Chris is taking questions from the community, which you can submit in reply to the post I've linked to. I'm happy to pass along questions that get posted here as well.

IMPORTANT NOTE: As clarified by OurLEFTOS here, the conversation won't be touching on any issues related to NBA 2K17, nor will it preview NBA 2K18. It's about developer stories, such as what it's like to go from the community to the development team, what it's like to work in the industry and on one of your favourite game series, and so on. In other words, these interviews will be about the people behind NBA 2K, rather than NBA 2K itself.

With that said, questions can be posted below, or over on OS of course.

Well it figures. They don't listen to users anyway about the game itself, so why change. They just keep messing it up more and more with each 'update' and patch, damned what the users think. Personally, I don't care about the stories of the people behind 2k. What I want is a game I can sit down and enjoy that doesn't cheat and have more cheats built in as time goes by.

As far as operation sports, I was banned cuz I had the audacity to disagree with someone. They only want people who agree with them all the time.

Last edited by StyxTx on Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Does READING reviews and paying SPECIFIC attention to game scores help motivate you guys in your work? Or do you choose TO JUST NOT PAY HEED or EVEN COMMENT on them altogether? Kicking a football at a beehive sorta speak.

My complaints towards the game have nothing to do with me thinking it's "Easy" to make changes, or easy to create the game, or easy to produce it. My gripes have to do with grasping the reality of certain gameplay issues that are obviously major game interrupters. And, the fact that they don't seem to be addressed. It's easy to fix the portrait issues with Charles Smith being assigned to Matt Bullard for the 3rd year in a row, and Adrian Griffin having his portrait for himself but 2k also giving an Adrian Griffin portrait to Walt Williams, for the second year in a row. And copying all of Lebrons signatures to Isaiah Rider, and not giving Nick Van Exel Shawn Marions FT, etc. Those are easy ones, and they should have been fixed for this years version of the game considering they were known issues with last years version.

The gameplay issues like the players not holding onto the ball securely, floating passes, charging issues, forced animations, broken defense, speed issues etc are obviously going to take more work and expertise to fix, but we as consumers absolutely deserve that thread I opened awhile ago that has over 120 comments on it about these issues, because feedback is vital, especially consumer feedback.

When we see reviews from other sites like IGN not addressing any of these issues, and when the consumer (us) is ignored or feel ignored, that's when we start to get really frustrated.

Nobody said it was easy to fix, and I have nothing but respect for Leftos and JaoSming, but I havn't seen one comment of someone saying "THIS IS AN EASY FIX!", but just that they want it to be fixed for this version of the game or next years version.

In regards to roster signatures/tendencies/attributes, I have to say that I am completely and totally underwhelmed with the effort put into the classic teams. This is something that requires a person who just needs to know about the game, and how the game works (sim stats and how the ratings/tendencies impact how they play on the floor). That is something I am quite a bit more unforgiving on, because it doesn't take coding or anything. It literally is just knowing your stuff, and applying it.

And the comment about playing for "hundreds of hours" or whatever, and the way it was said, like it means nothing.... irked me. The people who put that many hours into the game DO know a lot about the gameplay, and absolutely give great feedback. I certainly believe I know the gameplay inside and out by now, with yes, my hundreds and hundreds of hours of gameplay. We are the loyal ones who love the game of basketball, and for better or for worse, stick with the NBA 2K series.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

To be fair, I have seen quite a few comments from people over the years claiming that fixing certain problems (or indeed designing the game itself) is a simple process. Those people have often gone on to describe solutions that indicate that their knowledge of programming and game design isn't as strong as they perhaps think it is. I know I had misconceptions until I attended community events and played games that were still in development, so I can only imagine there are more surprising revelations for people who go from the community to actually working on the games. It's always going to sound defensive and like an excuse, but I can see, and to some degree relate, to where they're coming from.

Andrew wrote:To be fair, I have seen quite a few comments from people over the years claiming that fixing certain problems (or indeed designing the game itself) is a simple process. Those people have often gone on to describe solutions that indicate that their knowledge of programming and game design isn't as strong as they perhaps think it is. I know I had misconceptions until I attended community events and played games that were still in development, so I can only imagine there are more surprising revelations for people who go from the community to actually working on the games. It's always going to sound defensive and like an excuse, but I can see, and to some degree relate, to where they're coming from.

Fair enough, I can agree with you on that.

I love the time ive spent playing 2k/modding 2k over the years, it's been a great hobby.

I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do!

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

I think they did a good job grabbing a couple people from NLSC (Leftos and JaoSming), obviously the people who spend a ton of time on NLSC have a true passion for basketball and NBA 2K. Vlad as well, so that's three that I know of.

I wonder how many people they have actually working on the rosters (Player updates), like attributes/tendencies and whatnot.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Andrew wrote:To be fair, I have seen quite a few comments from people over the years claiming that fixing certain problems (or indeed designing the game itself) is a simple process. Those people have often gone on to describe solutions that indicate that their knowledge of programming and game design isn't as strong as they perhaps think it is. I know I had misconceptions until I attended community events and played games that were still in development, so I can only imagine there are more surprising revelations for people who go from the community to actually working on the games. It's always going to sound defensive and like an excuse, but I can see, and to some degree relate, to where they're coming from.

This.

My point wasn't "boohoo, game development is hard, woe is me, if there's any problems I'm going to pretend they're too hard to fix and use that as an excuse". It was about my own misconceptions about how simple the systems implemented in NBA 2K must be (e.g. the simulator, trade logic, etc.) and how easy it should be for me to go into them myself and just "fix them", and my befuddlement at how complex they were and how much harder they are to tune and improve than I imagined once I started working there. Others that have gone from similar positions of experiencing games as gamers for hundreds or thousands of hours and believing they've figured out each game's inner workings to actually working on the games have expressed similar sentiments. That was my point. It's a challenge, but one I'm taking on every day I work here, and gladly so.

I'm not making excuses for myself, or anyone on the team. Yeah, this job is hard (what a surprise!), but that's the whole point.

Andrew wrote:To be fair, I have seen quite a few comments from people over the years claiming that fixing certain problems (or indeed designing the game itself) is a simple process. Those people have often gone on to describe solutions that indicate that their knowledge of programming and game design isn't as strong as they perhaps think it is. I know I had misconceptions until I attended community events and played games that were still in development, so I can only imagine there are more surprising revelations for people who go from the community to actually working on the games. It's always going to sound defensive and like an excuse, but I can see, and to some degree relate, to where they're coming from.

This.

My point wasn't "boohoo, game development is hard, woe is me, if there's any problems I'm going to pretend they're too hard to fix and use that as an excuse". It was about my own misconceptions about how simple the systems implemented in NBA 2K must be (e.g. the simulator, trade logic, etc.) and how easy it should be for me to go into them myself and just "fix them", and my befuddlement at how complex they were and how much harder they are to tune and improve than I imagined once I started working there. Others that have gone from similar positions of experiencing games as gamers for hundreds or thousands of hours and believing they've figured out each game's inner workings to actually working on the games have expressed similar sentiments. That was my point. It's a challenge, but one I'm taking on every day I work here, and gladly so.

I'm not making excuses for myself, or anyone on the team. Yeah, this job is hard (what a surprise!), but that's the whole point.

Sorry if I came off like a jerk Leftos, wasn't my intention.

I value you guys a lot, thanks for continuing to work on the game.

My apologies.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

I don't have a huge saying on the whole gameplay side of things but for me atleast I've noticed over the past couple of years there are parts of the game that get completely ignored (the retro part of the game in particular). I know you don't deal with this certain part of the game Leftos but the art in this game is quite questionable. There is no excuse with the art as there is with actually coding the inners of the game.

I won't bash you guys too much but some of the stuff your art team produces is down right terrible, and yes you could say that it comes down to time constraints/working on the next game etc. but if a normal modder like me, an amateur can produce something ten times better through GIMP, a free image editor in a couple of hours surely people with actual experience in that field of work and possibly even degrees of that nature can produce better artwork. I applaud some of the stuff you've worked on however, if I'm not mistaken you worked extensively on MyGM and MyLeague, the whole expansion feature was a brilliant addition and I never had any problems with it.

Tbh I simply don't care anymore. There are so many legacy issues especially with the offline modes that have been mentioned again and again and again since 2k14 and well before that that have not been adressed. Neither has the issue been adressed that MyCareer is getting more rubbish each game, becomes more and more online focussed forcing people like me, who simply do not want to play in the Park to still grind like crazy for a pair of shorts or a headband, being forced into more or less unplayable archetypes, not being able to try them properly because it requires committing a serious amount of VC to really know how well one archetype plays, animations and attire getting more and more expensive each year while the VC reward per game is dropping and dropping and the price for VC is going up and up.

Yeah those guys are developers and don't really have anything to do with the monetisation of the whole game but how on earth can you defend this rubbish business practice of draining people of more and more cash each year while still shelling out a game full price every year that is hyped to no end by Scott OG and the boyz while basically being a roster update. How about getting to work on those legacy issues? How about giving players who don't want to play in the park a proper non corny career mode without having to pay through the nose to enjoy the game without grinding 200 hours per career just to get an 80 rated player? How about getting to work on half the faces of the old school teams that still look like they were taken from the N64? How about making legends available through MyTeam available to play offline? How bout da? Seriously how about getting to work on this game properly? Maybe take a break for 2-3 years and really iron out stuff that has been persistent for years now? How about giving us a proper editor in game that doesn't force us to use chinese tools? I would love to create some coaches for the coaching pool but I can't. I'd love to download specific players from a community creation suit but I can't. I'd love to edit the Arenas of teams, jerseys, who has which pick and so forth but again... I can't. Give the offline features some love and stop wasting all the energy on the Park and Park after dark and all that rubbish.

Yeah I get it that that is where your money is made mainly but at some point people will stop buying the game because a lot of us do actually play season mode and want to experiment with old school players with proper faces and tendencies and do want to have Phil Jackson on the sideline for the Bulls or even if we aren't into oldschool we want to start our own team with at least the city name being called during games and the game playing like a proper basketball sim if we use the right slider set. Not everybody who plays this game is a 15 year old with ADHD whose mission in life it is to break every single season and career record with Russel Westbrook.

Btw. I disagree with the expansion feature. Yeah it's great but what isn't great is that there is neither a list of city names nor of team names that you can pick from that the announcers will actually call out which is basically the backbone of this feature. If the announcers won't call my team anything what's the point of playing in Seattle? How hard would it be to include some obvious city and team names from the past and throw them in there? Bullets, Royals, Spirits, Renaissance etc. How hard is it to throw some old team designs in there to choose from? The NBA holds nearly all the rights to these legacy team names and images so why not put them in the game? Why can't I just change the uniform of my team from time to time or throw together a cool new special uniform myself if my team only has 3 or 4 options instead of 10 like the Lakers?

And how hard is it to use the face scanning feature of WWE 2k? Sure the overall result if you have like a killer phone with cam, killer lighting, killer everything might be better on 2k17 but seriously... who has that? And who has the time to take like 50 attempts to get one halfway decent one? WWE 2k has the more user friendly and better system so use it!

And in regards to not having some coaches/players, that's not 2k's fault (atleast I don't think it is). Its a contract thing, they have to get the player/coach to agree to be in the game. So, if Phil Jackson didn't agree, or a player like Sheed, they cant be put in the game. I am very forgiving of this aspect of 2k, because they can only do so much in that regard.

The legacy issues do need to be ironed out, and I do have a feeling they are being looked at, judging by what they said about the next patch coming through.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

And in regards to not having some coaches/players, that's not 2k's fault (atleast I don't think it is). Its a contract thing, they have to get the player/coach to agree to be in the game. So, if Phil Jackson didn't agree, or a player like Sheed, they cant be put in the game. I am very forgiving of this aspect of 2k, because they can only do so much in that regard.

The legacy issues do need to be ironed out, and I do have a feeling they are being looked at, judging by what they said about the next patch coming through.

Dee please read the comment properly. I don't want Phil Jackson in the game. I want an editor that allows me to properly edit (name, face etc.) and/or create coaches. I don't want to have a bunch of nobodies in my coaching and gm freeagent list. Let me add guys like George Karl, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson and what not if I feel like it. What's so hard about a proper in game editor? Game were able to provide those like 15 year ago.

And in regards to not having some coaches/players, that's not 2k's fault (atleast I don't think it is). Its a contract thing, they have to get the player/coach to agree to be in the game. So, if Phil Jackson didn't agree, or a player like Sheed, they cant be put in the game. I am very forgiving of this aspect of 2k, because they can only do so much in that regard.

The legacy issues do need to be ironed out, and I do have a feeling they are being looked at, judging by what they said about the next patch coming through.

Dee please read the comment properly. I don't want Phil Jackson in the game. I want an editor that allows me to properly edit (name, face etc.) and/or create coaches. I don't want to have a bunch of nobodies in my coaching and gm freeagent list. Let me add guys like George Karl, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson and what not if I feel like it. What's so hard about a proper in game editor? Game were able to provide those like 15 year ago.

Oh okay, I see what you are saying.

It would be cool to have a proper coach creator, I would be really impressed by that.. and I would certainly use it often.

And for the console players, just an overall better create a player feature, so everybody doesn't look alike.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

And in regards to not having some coaches/players, that's not 2k's fault (atleast I don't think it is). Its a contract thing, they have to get the player/coach to agree to be in the game. So, if Phil Jackson didn't agree, or a player like Sheed, they cant be put in the game. I am very forgiving of this aspect of 2k, because they can only do so much in that regard.

The legacy issues do need to be ironed out, and I do have a feeling they are being looked at, judging by what they said about the next patch coming through.

Dee please read the comment properly. I don't want Phil Jackson in the game. I want an editor that allows me to properly edit (name, face etc.) and/or create coaches. I don't want to have a bunch of nobodies in my coaching and gm freeagent list. Let me add guys like George Karl, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson and what not if I feel like it. What's so hard about a proper in game editor? Game were able to provide those like 15 year ago.

Oh okay, I see what you are saying.

It would be cool to have a proper coach creator, I would be really impressed by that.. and I would certainly use it often.

And for the console players, just an overall better create a player feature, so everybody doesn't look alike.

Well in general simply a better editor. I mean that would make much easier for the console guys as well who can't rely on Limnono and other stuff we can use. Is it so hard to include a full fledged editor that lets you edit legends age, edit and create coaches, move around picks and other stuff, change coaches contract length (btw. how on earth does Brad Stevens still have to short timer badge after 4 years with the Celtics when guys like David Blatt never had it and Ty Lue certainly doesn't have it and neither does Steve Kerr?), Arena stuff, jerseys and what not. And talking about the legacy issues: I believe it when I see it... there are so many of them that it beggars believe especially in the offline mode.

hedop wrote:Is it so hard to include a full fledged editor that lets you edit legends age, edit and create coaches, move around picks and other stuff, change coaches contract length (btw. how on earth does Brad Stevens still have to short timer badge after 4 years with the Celtics when guys like David Blatt never had it and Ty Lue certainly doesn't have it and neither does Steve Kerr?), Arena stuff, jerseys and what not.

It's quite feasible that it is difficult. Not necessarily coding such a feature in the first place, but adding it to the existing code and getting it to work properly with all the existing functions, user interface, and so forth. And even if it is feasible, there may not be time to implement it properly, while also addressing other pressing issues.

The other possible issue when it comes to having such an in-depth suite of editing - and one that I feel could be quite likely - is whether or not their hands are tied by the NBA. The league is obviously cool with the expansion and re-branding options in NBA 2K17, but would they approve of a feature that allows users to completely overwrite all the NBA-licensed content by default, or otherwise modify that content in a way they feel could be damaging to the brand, violate the terms of the licensing agreement, and so on. In that case, it doesn't really matter whether it's technically feasible or not; if the NBA says no, then that's the end of the matter (at least until the next time it's brought up).

hedop wrote:Is it so hard to include a full fledged editor that lets you edit legends age, edit and create coaches, move around picks and other stuff, change coaches contract length (btw. how on earth does Brad Stevens still have to short timer badge after 4 years with the Celtics when guys like David Blatt never had it and Ty Lue certainly doesn't have it and neither does Steve Kerr?), Arena stuff, jerseys and what not.

It's quite feasible that it is difficult. Not necessarily coding such a feature in the first place, but adding it to the existing code and getting it to work properly with all the existing functions, user interface, and so forth. And even if it is feasible, there may not be time to implement it properly, while also addressing other pressing issues.

The other possible issue when it comes to having such an in-depth suite of editing - and one that I feel could be quite likely - is whether or not their hands are tied by the NBA. The league is obviously cool with the expansion and re-branding options in NBA 2K17, but would they approve of a feature that allows users to completely overwrite all the NBA-licensed content by default, or otherwise modify that content in a way they feel could be damaging to the brand, violate the terms of the licensing agreement, and so on. In that case, it doesn't really matter whether it's technically feasible or not; if the NBA says no, then that's the end of the matter (at least until the next time it's brought up).

That's a mute point Andrew since if this was the case 2k would either not be allowed to offer such features as create a roster and others or would be asked to police those rosters to make sure that no one uploads a roster with players like Charles Manson, Ted Bund and Timothy McVeigh (just as an example). I for one have never heard of a roster being rejected for content (just for the name) and I doubt you know of anyone who had a roster rejected for that. Since that isn't the case it isn't a licensing issue. I'm also pretty sure that that isn't a legal thing anyway. I have never heard of a license forcing you to not edit certain aspects and keep them real to protect the brand.

Like I said it is easy to include. I'm no programmer but if games 10-15 years ago were able to do it and quite a lot of other games are able to do it now and some shitty little unlicensed chineses hackers program can do it too I don't think we need to be concerned with the feasibility since it obviously is possible. Tbf I think we can at least expect a proper editor from a game that costs 50 bucks each year without substantially changing and improving anything. I'm tired of people giving NBA 2k a pass for everything they don't do and provide. This is the only game in which several communities behave like sheep when it comes to the game. "Don't anger the 2k gods or they will punish us! Fear the wrath of Ronnie2k!" Any other community rips the game and it's developer a new butthole for the state of release that we have to suffer every year for a full priced game... Mass Effect Andromeda anyone?

Obviously roster editing isn't completely disallowed by the NBA. That's not what I said, though. I said the NBA might not want to allow certain things. Since WWE 2K has come up, it provides an example with Chris Benoit CAWs, which are removed from the Community Creations and in some cases, the people who upload them are also banned. That's a directive that comes from WWE, who have distanced themselves from Benoit and limited mentions of him following what happened back in 2007. Now, there are some exceptions; his matches are available on the Network, though you can't jump straight to them through the marked timestamps. They can't erase him from history completely, but they can limit his association with their brand, including instituting a policy against CAWs bearing his name and likeness being shared in their licensed games. The NBA would be able to impose similar sanctions if they felt their brand was being harmed in any way, so it's definitely a possibility. It's one of the reasons players don't get unsportsmanlike techs and there are no fights or scuffles, after all.

As I said, coding the suite of editing tools itself is likely not the problem, but implementing it into the rest of the code feasibly could be. Programming software isn't like creating a Word document, where you can go back in and edit in a paragraph, and continuously add new content to the end of the document without any problems. New code has to be inserted without breaking any other features, and work seamlessly with all other functions. If the existing features and functions are coded a certain way, that can be easier said than done. I suppose that's something we could criticise, that the prior approach was short-sighted or problematic, inhibiting the ability to implement new features. At the time of course, it would've served its purpose. So again, designing a feature may be feasible and relatively simple, but putting it in and not breaking a bunch of other stuff tends to be the difficult part.

I'll grant you that there are definitely a lot of gamers who make excuses, but there are also people who believe they know more about programming and game design than they actually do, and refuse to believe that there are other factors. I've lost count of how many times I've seen people rip 2K for not including certain historical players, claiming that they don't know their history or have no respect for the player in question. The real reason of course is an inability to license the likenesses of those players, and that can come down to money or players simply not being interested. I'd say that a majority of gamers do know that, but there's still a large chunk of the demographic who doesn't seem to, or chooses to disbelieve that is the case. So it goes for certain other criticisms as well.

Does that mean that there aren't valid criticisms? Absolutely not. I mean, we've got a rather long thread here where many of us are expressing our frustration at certain problems, and I think we've accurately described some key issues. We've also discussed how professional reviews seem to miss a lot of the key points, good and bad. It does get to a point where we have to organise our thoughts in a more constructive manner and leave out some of the snark. To draw comparisons to our modding community, feedback that is presented directly and not peppered with insults is generally received a lot better than profane rants about mods not working, or ratings being incorrect, or releases not being quick enough. We expect civility of each other when it comes to our modding community, so when we're compiling feedback for developers, we take the same approach. It doesn't mean we can't grumble and blow off steam in other topics; we just set some aside in which we can be calmer and more constructive. Shouting and non-shouting areas, if you will.

Speaking of modding, we also make the mistake of looking at game development as we do the process of creating mods. It's easier to modify the assets of a finished product than to program that product in the first place. What the software engineers are working on while the game is in development does not look like the set of files we have for a game that has gone gold, been released, and now sits on our hard drive. The code and data in its raw state, and the finished files, are two different beasts.

Having said all that, we absolutely should speak our minds. It would be great to have an in-depth suite of editing tools, so it's important that we say that, say exactly what it is that we want, and make it clear that we are very invested in the possibility of those features being implemented ASAP. We obviously have some roster editing tools at our disposal, and it seems like there are changes that definitely need to be made to the official rosters. To that end, perhaps there needs to be more of an open dialogue with Mike Stauffer, where feedback is compiled and those changes can be implemented into the official roster updates sooner and more consistently.

There should be a constant stream of feedback about a lot of things, and as long as we can be civil and mature, we're doing the right thing by ourselves as consumers. If we're being abusive and forcing developers to wade through six paragraphs of snarky insults before they get to our actual feedback, we're no worse than the person flaming a modder for not releasing something quick or enough, or getting a slight detail wrong. We're setting ourselves up to be ignored, if we approach the matter like screaming toddlers throwing a tantrum. It's like community members who get banned for causing a fuss here, and email me about it. I'm going to be a lot more willing to hear out the person who can approach the matter calmly and with civility, and likely to give them a second chance. I'm not going to extend the same courtesy to the people who send me long rants about how they're totally in the right and I'm awful, and instructing me to lift the ban while telling me what I can do to myself or them.

It's not about sucking up, it's about getting to the point, being honest, and being an adult about it. There are a few things to keep in mind though, things that get overlooked because a lot of people don't know as much about programming or software design as they think they do. That's not being a sheep or making excuses, that's acknowledging reality...which you can do, while still being critical and making suggestions. As for Ronnie 2K, I don't think anyone around these parts is defending him, or inclined to. There are people who seem to grovel for Locker Codes and the like, but a lot of the replies to his social media posts are pretty negative. He's acted pretty damn poorly at times, and he certainly reaps the consequences, from the community if not the company.

One final thing that we need to keep in mind when we're discussing improvements we want to see: everyone has different tastes, and different priorities. It's easy to point fingers at each other and claim that someone else doesn't care or cares about the wrong things, just because we all happen to care a little more about something that isn't as important to someone else. For example, if you don't play MyCAREER, you're not going to care about criticisms of the grading logic or story aspect. If you only play the single player modes, the stability of online performance is not going to worry you. If you are passionate about those modes, on the other hand, you'll care a great deal. We can't fairly accuse each other of not caring about the things that matter to us, while at the same time refusing to care about the things that matter to other people and not us. It's hypocritical, and we don't achieve anything by such in-fighting.

The likeness issue will forever be there, we will never have a game that produces full historical teams 100% completed. Why? Well, some of these players have passed away, some want nothing to do with the NBA, and even some don't think they get paid enough to be in the game (For example, the Charles Barkley situation). Charles Barkley wanted equal billing to Julius Erving and Michael Jordan, and 2k wasn't having it, so he said he wouldn't sign on with the game. I've read a couple articles on this, and I do believe that this story is true. It's why you havn't seen Barkley in any of the regular rosters. So I get it... however. 2k could do a much better job of working around It, if they are not restrained on which classic teams (which years) they put in the game.

For example, instead of the 84-85 76ers which they put in the games for years, why not put the 82-83 76ers? The 84-85 76ers looked silly and empty without Barkley, but that team didn't win the championship, they didn't even make the finals, the 82-83 76ers won the title, and they had 7 or 8 players for that team already in the game. It is a much more logical choice. Why put the 90-91 TrailBlazers in the game? They were the team IN BETWEEN the two finals Blazers teams, why not the 89-90 Blazers that went to the finals and played the Pistons? or the 91-92 Blazers that went to the finals and played the Bulls?. Why not get a primed David Robinson team in there, you have like 9 or 10 guys that you have rights to for the 94-95 Spurs team? Why is there a gap between 76-77 and 84-85? Surely you can fill that gap with a couple teams (Like I said, the 82-83 76ers). When you implemented the new classic teams, how were the 04-05 Spurs (Who you have rights to most of the players) not included? I know Lebrons popular, but they are more relevant than the 06-07 Cavs, you released the Kobe edition of the game, but didn't include the 08-09 Lakers or the 09-10 Lakers, wouldn't that have made a lot of sense in honor of Kobe? you have most or all the guys from those teams. You have the rights to all of the 10-11 Mavericks, why not them?

I think part of the frustration from people is the common sense stuff that we say "Wait, how could that have been put through production, and not seen or fixed?". Like the blunders on portraits, the simming seasons and finding out power forwards/centers have like 5 assists and 3 steals for the whole season, guards have 0 blocks and like 20 rebounds for a whole season. And we, as the user, have to go in and fix all the tendencies and some of the attributes for it to be right. The classic teams issue above is another one, common sense choices bypassed for question marks. Now, maybe they reached out to the organizations and they said "No, I don't want you to represent us with that team", but I doubt that the 76ers would say no to honoring the 1983 championship team, or the Lakers being upset about honoring the late 2000's championship teams, or the Spurs scoffing at the 2005 Spurs championship team. Another frustration stems from recycled faces, or just bad unrealistic faces, that again the user questions how it got passed production. We have someone like PeacemanNOT, a 19 year old kid from Ireland going to school, modding during his breaks and producing amazing faces, how can he see how bad these faces are, fix them, release them, and it be better than the art department at 2k? Hakeem Olajuwon default in game looks nothing like him, I won't go down the list, but many of them are just way off. Now, they did produce some solid fixes this year (Bill Russell, Allen Iverson, David Robinson, etc). But why were those players so off for so many years, and why are so many players still off.

It's the same as the skinny body types, if 99% of the regular human population looks at these body types, and goes "WOW, these are NOT GOOD", and scoffs at them. How did the art department let that get passed production? Look at Dominiquie Wilkins, Kevin Willis, John Stockton, etc for classic players, and current players like Greek Freak, Jason Terry, Gordon Haywood... look at a picture of those guys, and than look at them in game... in game they look like me when I was 13, in real life they look like athletes with muscle. So how did that body type get passed production, when 99% of the people who play the game notice how bad it looks? Signature shots is another one where a user notices it right off the bat, some of them are just way off. How do we see that, the user, right off the bat, but it makes it through production?

It's the same when we watch some of the 2k crew sit down and play the game before launch (When they play on 2k view), and they are saying that certain things in the game that are happening are realistic, when cleary it's not, the consumer goes... wait.. what are they talking about? I know that 2k has a product to sell, and it is a business, but it's another situation where the consumer gets frustrated. Also, playing on the 2k view doesn't show off the game at all, or the realism of the game. I know that it's the "classic view", but no basketball game has ever been on tv with that view. All of the consumers moments/memories watching the NBA are on the broadcast view, why do they continue to push the 2k view so hard pre and post release?. We would get a better idea of the gameplay pre-release if the guys from 2k were playing it from the broadcast vantage point. Considering we don't get a demo, wouldn't that make more sense? Or, do two games, one on 2k view and one on broadcast? You guys have seen my highlight videos I've posted, they simulate the real life broadcast look. They also give you the real view of the space between players, and you can actually see the baseline and exactly how close to the hoop you are. Now, I know I went off on a little rant there, so I apologize.. but I think you can see where I am coming from. If I, the consumer, watch people who work for 2k or market for 2k, play the game, and they don't look like they are very good at it, or don't represent it the right way, or they call things realistic that are not, what is my trust level for them?

And that goes back to the gameplay things we complain about, like slow motion layups and slow motion dunks. If we, as the consumer, see that and on the first time go "Wait a minute, that looked really unrealistic", we wonder how it got passed production. The legacy issues/gameplay issues have been covered, and I know that these are tougher to fix than my other mentions above, but it just adds to the frustration. The other things I mentioned above, people in THIS community see right away and if they have the ability, they fix it.

So yes, sometimes the community comes off a bit like "know it alls", or acting like "its easy". But honestly, I think most of us just wonder how a lot of these things made it passed production. They are in there doing the faces, signature shots, portraits, teams anyway, why not do it right?

My comments above are more for me to explain in depth why I think the consumer gets frustrated, or why light is placed on other issues outside even the ones I mentioned above. I think its because we are just the consumer, and if we can see these things, how do they make it through production?

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Oh I definitely agree, there have been some strange design choices and issues in NBA 2K17, and other recent games. While it's an issue I can get past if I'm enjoying my time with the game - which has been the case for the most part, depending on the mode and the day - I'm definitely not sure what was going on with the skinny body models. In previous games, some of their body models have been too bulky, so maybe it was overcompensation? That's my best guess. Other design choices I can see what they were going for, but I don't think they've worked out (Coach Brubaker outside of MyCAREER), or not worked out as well as intended (MyPLAYER Archetypes; good idea, but they haven't achieved their purpose as well as I'd hoped).

I also agree in regards to the historical teams. There are some strange choices, given the fact that some very noteworthy players are absent. My feeling is that if you can't at least get the entire starting five, it's not an ideal choice. I guess in some respects, having the team mostly intact is better than nothing, and as you said, they're highly unlikely to get teams in the entirety. Still, there's a difference between having generic players from the ninth or tenth player onwards, and missing a starter (especially when they're a future Hall of Famer, or a perennial All-Star during their career).

We definitely know our stuff, and can make great suggestions. The frustration we've expressed at times definitely isn't unwarranted, either. However, I'm referring to things like the time someone suggested that 2K (and I'm paraphrasing slightly here) "bring in Phil Jackson to inspect their code, and tell them what to delete". I mean, there's so many things wrong with that specific suggestion, it's tough to know where to begin!

Well tbh the most frustrating part to me in regards to the legends is that so many are available in MyTeam (Bob Cousy for example) yet are off limits for the normal game unless you mod it. How is that? You wouldn't even have to include their whole team. Just throw them in a 50 greatest roster or in a decades roster. And why not take out age completely and just give us the prime player? I mean it's sad that you can only play with the corpse of Mt. Mutombo and not the real Mutombo. It's just sad. It's sad that you can only play with the corpse of Karl Malone and John Stockton and not both of those guys at their peak. How are guys like Bill Walton only in the game as their corpses when their prime version used to be in the game and still are in the game via MyTeam? I mean come on. And tbh nobody wants or needs 10 version of Jordan or Lebron. Give us prime Lebron and young Lebron and leave it at that and for all I care include three Bulls teams. Dunkin' Mike with the chain and the hair, Piston killer Mike in 1991 and World Beater Mike in 1997. Tbh you might actually leave it at one team per decade but I understand guys wanting to play with the old school teams but at least limit it to make sense and give single player guys access to Rick Barry and Bob Cousy.

The Cyberfaces issue just boggles my mind especially considering some teams that people absolutely love. How does Bill Laimbeer still have a face straight out of WCW vs NWO on N64? That's just bad dude... really bad. As is Tommy Heinsohn... for crying out loud that dude is still alive and kicking and still doing the Celtics broadcast, gibe him a face man.

In terms of Charles Barkley: I heard something totally different and tbh I don't know Chuck but the equal billing stuff makes absolutely no sense to me. Chuck is incredibly humble when it comes to praising other players and giving them their due. He still revers Dr J and Moses and constantly tells the story of how Doc took him shopping for a suit on his first day in the league. He loves Magic so much that he honoured him by wearing his number after Magic was diagnosed with HIV. He loves Kevin Mchale and constantly tells everyone that Kevin was the best player he ever played against and that there was nothing he could do to stop Kevin or score against him. There are dozens of those stories that he relates often and freely. He always prefaces any criticism of Lebron by saying what a great player Lebron is and that he is possibly better than Michael Jordan and that Lebron never missed a beat in the NBA. He does the same for Shaq (obviously not the Michael comparison), Magic, Larry Bird, Karl Malone (who is a close personal friend), Reggie Miller, CWeb, TMac. I simply can't and won't believe that he would be so petty and greedy when he is such a humble person and so generous to everyone. Except for some unfortunate things that happened off court nobody has ever said a bad word about Charles Barkley the person, everybody loves Chuck (except for when he calls them out, most times rightly so), hell he even named Pat Summitt as possibly the best coach of all time.

So the story I heard from a lot of sources and from a lot of players (Reggie Miller mentioned it as a reason why he never agreed to licensing, taking the lead from Chuck on that) is that Charles is appalled by how the NCAA rapes young black men financially and how the NBA in his eyes still does not do enough financially to reward the players like Oscar and Bill Russell (basically most of the, especially black, pioneers of the game) as such he doesn't condone the games as he feels that A: any official NBA licensed product should pay a higher share to older players and B: he feels that the video game companies are cheap skating older players because they aren't as popular anymore hence if they wouldn't be included in the game it wouldn't matter as much as Magic, Larry, Mike, Kobe and Shaq being in the game hence they get offered way less then other retired players (like TMac) even though they were bigger stars in their day and had way less earning potential during their careers. He however still has pull, a media presence and is well known and feels that he can take a stand on it by not being included. He was only included twice so far. Once at the urgence of Jay-Z when he was the producer of the game, which he did as a personal favour (and he was included in the regular roster back then) and this time because he felt he wanted to honour the 92 Dream Team but insisted he would not be a regular roster player.

To me the whole billing issue makes no sense. Dr. J isn't getting paid as much as Mike who was a noticeable hold out before 2k11 when he became the cover star and got like half a mio for doing it or so. Dr. J was also never a cover athlete and neither were Magic or Larry. So to me the billing argument makes no sense. Nobody besides the current players, Kobe and Mike got billing so why would he say he wants the same billing as Dr. J who got no billing at all? And if it comes to money again: Mike is the higest paid for his likeness in the game. That is common knowledge so why even bring up Dr. J? Furthermore I do not think Charles would want equal billing to Dr. J. He loves Doc, as everyone does, he absolutely adores him, praises him and holds him in the highest regard and looks at him as a way better player than himself, not only for the championship. He worships at Docs Altar for all the help Doc gave him as young player.

Even if he holds those other Legends in high regard, he has to be aware of his own value and how 2K can profit off his likeness, so if he wants his fair share, that's understandable. I've also heard he's just not a big fan of video games, which if true, probably makes it a tough sell on top of any quibbles over dollars.

I'm all for Decade All-Stars, a pool of assignable Legends, and better use of some players who are currently only used in MyTEAM.

Hedop, you may be right about Barkley. We may never know the real story.. however, it doesn't change what I said about 2k finding a way to work around that issue. Like I stated, the classic teams choices are puzzling.

By the way, WCW vs NWO for N64 was a fantastic game.

In regards to the faces, I touched on it like you did, just in a slightly different way. We can all agree that we don't like the recycled faces, and wonder how they made it through production.

As far as a "Legends Pool" of sorts, I've always thought it would be a great idea, or like all decade teams. It is frustrating for many users that they can use a player like Glen Rice in MyTeam, but can't use him in any offline modes. It's the same with Live, they have ALL the classic players in Ultimate Team not available in offline mode/other modes, which doesn't make sense. Now, the kicker is, that is a big money maker for 2k and EA. People will literally fork money over to by currency to access the players, maybe not you or I, but thousands out there will. So, I am sure the reason is a business income position. If all those guys were available outside of MyTeam, how many thousands of dollar would be lost by those not purchasing players/virtual currency, my guess is a lot.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Well, they'd still have to be bought/earned in MyTEAM, even if they're available in other modes. They'd lose the "only in MyTEAM!" incentive to get people to play the mode, but if the mode really doesn't appeal to people, they're not going to touch it anyway. I reckon they'd still make plenty of bank through microtransactions, even if they expanded the historical rosters outside of MyTEAM.

Andrew wrote:Well, they'd still have to be bought/earned in MyTEAM, even if they're available in other modes. They'd lose the "only in MyTEAM!" incentive to get people to play the mode, but if the mode really doesn't appeal to people, they're not going to touch it anyway. I reckon they'd still make plenty of bank through microtransactions, even if they expanded the historical rosters outside of MyTEAM.

Yeah, my statement is that far less people would play MyTeam, they would be piecing together teams in offline modes. Which in turn, would have 2k losing money.

Either way, I am glad I play on PC. Haha.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

True WCW vs NWO was amazing... still I think Laimbeer deserves to look better than Goldberg and Booker T in 1999

True that is why I mentioned MT specifically. It's simply a business issue. The same reason why they don't give you a proper single player mode for MyCareer. People would probably not bother as much because yes MyPark can be fun but I think most would have more fun with playing a player that can be 7'5 and still have 99 speed if you invest enough time in him. But that would severely limit the amount of VC they sold to players so that's a no go right there.

That is why I am getting tired of asking nicely. They milk us or try to milk us for every penny, most stuff never get fixed, we have to and can rely on modders (unlike consoles) to at least get some fixes, yet we shell out 50 bucks every year. Isn't that enough? Shouldn't it be enough to pay 50 bucks for a game? Does it really have to be like that that to enjoy the game I have to go through some online grindfest in MT or MyCareer or pay another 100 dollars through the nose? Calculate how much VC you need to get all of your upgrades for your player (before earning new upgrade slots). It costs like 220.000 VC. That's like 150 games with a double double and an A+ rating. That is insane! Two season??? Or you can pay 60 bucks... well that's another game right there. For one career... so to actually try out all positions that's like 300 bucks and that doesn't take into account the archetype system... what is it? 5 archetypes? That's 1.500 bucks. Jesus Christ.

Andrew wrote:Even if he holds those other Legends in high regard, he has to be aware of his own value and how 2K can profit off his likeness, so if he wants his fair share, that's understandable. I've also heard he's just not a big fan of video games, which if true, probably makes it a tough sell on top of any quibbles over dollars.

I'm all for Decade All-Stars, a pool of assignable Legends, and better use of some players who are currently only used in MyTEAM.

True but come on man... it's Chuck we are talking about here. I'm sure he doesn't give stuff away for free but he is loaded and always says so himself... it's not like he needs that money desperately or wants to protect his brand by only giving you the rights of obscene amounts of money like Mike (Mike is actually known for that). I just don't think he'd be more greedy than Shaq. I mean for crying out loud he'd be on the TNT crew as well so he would get paid handsomely on top of everything. So I just don't buy it.

Btw. I'm always amazed how bad Steve Kerr looks in the game. I mean they got Smitty mostly right and Kenny is fine, Shaq is okayish but Steve Kerr looks absolutely rubbish in game and on the sidelines. Hell how can you fuck up that guys face when you can even manage to give Kevin McHale a limp

But, the VC discussion is always tough on the consumer, as they feel they shouldn't have to pay extra for content, after already purchasing the game (Sometimes $60, sometimes even more for the enhanced editions). Me personally, I am fine with grinding in games to beat them, or to obtain new items. 2k does nothing different from SquareSoft, or any other companies that offers full games, but shortcuts in the form of micro transactions. It's funny, I almost relate some of these microtransactions as buying "Cheat Codes" like we had back in the day. Oh, you want to get 30 lives on Contra? Instead of just researching or hearing through word of mouth that it's up up, down down, left right left right, B A Start, you make a micro transaction to get those 30 lives. Now, Contra on NES was beatable without the extra lives, but the 30 lives didn't hurt.

RPG's do the same thing with Armor, Weapons etc.. oh you want this body armor? Here it is available in the game store!!!! or, you can grind out and craft the armor by getting the right materials, talking to the right people, and leveling up appropriately. Again, I like working for what I have, so I'm okay with grinding.

With 2k, it's "I want to use Rolando Blackman in MyTeam!" (Honestly... has anybody uttered those words?), and you either buy him off the store using your hard earned money, or play for hundreds of hours to earn VC or MT points. Some say "Screw it, im going to buy the currency so I have the ability to use the primed Rolando Blackman earlier!!!". Again, he probably doesn't cost that much, but you get the point.

I would like to see them entertain a legends pool, I really feel like offline mode deserves that. But, who knows if that will happen with the VC system being around.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

No I don't get the point. We are talking about core gameplay features here.

Firstly this isn't an RPG that comes out every 4 or 5 years. Now I don't want to shit on 2k but basically they crap out one these games every year and have done so for nearly two decades now. They properly scrap their engine very 5-6 years or so but basically keep miling the old engine. For crying out loud they have released 2k17 for XBOX 360 and PS3 with basically no updates whatsoever meaning that the game those people get is basically 2k13... and they will do so until they are is a PS5. Most other games that are in the same price range have to abandon those systems in their next iteration because either the old system is already completely obsolete or because players expect such an advancement in graphics and gameplay that it is simply not feasible to release a game like that on the older generation. So we are already in a whole different territory. 2k sells us this stuff every year, keeps selling an old version of the game with a roster update as the new version for the older systems until the wheels fall off and on top of that reviewers and players give them a pass for miniscule advancements and legacy issues every time. The reason? Well it's only been one year. It's a total anachronism. Not only do they completely shut down the support for their previous game basically after 6-8 months.

Now imagine the Witcher 3 or Mass Effect coming out every year. It still has the same bugs and problems as the old one, the story is exactly the same or slightly different, the gameplay mechanics are the same, the graphics are the same or worse, it costs 50 bucks and on top of that after 8 months they won't fix it further since they are already working on the new one. Can you imagine how much crap a game like that would get? But we let it slide.

Furthermore how can you even equate the "grinding" of collecting or buying 10 leather belts and a piece of iron in a shop and to playing 150 games on at least 6 minutes to get the required teammate grade and rebounds and points to get at least a basically decent player? That is 60 hours. 60 hours for basically nothing. No shoes, no headband, no animations, no nothing. Just an 82 rated player. That's like buying your way to level whatever or doing the South Park "Make love not Warcraft" way of slaughtering boars for 10xp for like a week. Now I don't know what kind of RPGs you play but any non MMO RPGs I play (and those are the AAA) ones neither have an option to level up via money nor do most allow you to buy armor or weapons with real money. Usually that is bonus content and that is usually limited to one set of armor, which you won't miss (unlike a 3 point shot) and a pet (which again you won't miss unlike post defense). If any major RPG did that it would be ripped absolutely to shreds. The internet tore Deus EX MD a new one when they found out there were microtransactions. There are none in Mass Effect 1, 2, 3 or Andromeda outside the Multiplayer, there are none in Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2 or Dragon Age Inquistion, there are none in The Witcher 1-3, there are none in Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original Sin, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Zelda Breath of the Wild, Watch Dogs 2, Watch Dogs, GTA V, GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Torment Tides of Numenera, Wasteland 2, Fallout 3 or 4, Skyrim, Oblivion and none I can even think off. So if you have any examples please let me know because the games I mentioned have sales of millions and don't pull this rubbish.

You might be talking about MMO's but that's a different thing. Those are nearly all free to play and I choose to pay to get good or get some armor. That's a choice. I don't pay 50 bucks for Star Trek, Star Wars or whatever online and then someone tells me: unless you want to spend the next 200 hours of your life in game purgatory: you need to buy this stuff. But we are talking about basically an offline game with Multiplayer features. Now if they want to take it online: Fine. Make the game free to play and then let the idiots buy their way to the top. But not when I pay 50 bucks.

Also: We are talking about core features here. Rosters and players are core game features. They are not extras. Hell there are like 600 players in this game but another 300 or more are locked behind a paywall. Which other game hides 1/3 of it's content behind a paywall after costing you 50 bucks? And how is it that the grind gets worse every year when it's apparently not meant as a grind but a proper alternative to paying? How is it that now all NBA animations require you to pay VC and every crappy item of clothing even bland headbands? Hell NBA players get that stuff for free and nearly every scrub on every team has some kind of accessory but I need to "earn" that? Or play a whole game to afford a simple headband? That's insane. How is it that the reward get's smaller and smaller. The most you can get now per game is like 1.800 VC or so on HoF. Last year it was 2.500 VC. They dropped the VC earning even more in MyGM. And why is it that even in MyGM I can "pay" for pitches to players and coaches? It's a single player mode yet they invade that thing with VC????

It's simply sinister because the grind get grindier. Now if the grind was somehow halfway okay in terms of it being bearable and relateable... say half a season of games to get to a 90 or so... okay. But two whole season of in game play for 82? Now you are taking the mick. And that's the plan. Make the grind more and more unfeasable for anybody with a life and make VC more prominent and therefore seemingly easier. Why do I know even have to upgrades in a shop? Oh... because right on the bottom of the thang is the nice little symbol that takes me to where I can buy VC and the default setting of your cursor when you enter the sop is on: buy VC. Now we are talking.

So please stop with the comparisons. It's greedy and it's filthy and it's wrong. But what can you expect from a guy called Strauss Khan?

And lastly: How on earth is that even an argument: more content? How is keeping the good looking legends and some of the biggest names in the game behind a paywall more content and not content that we can expect to be in a 50 bucks game? Think about it this way... if me and you and others hadn't paid 50 bucks every year since the dawn of time those guys wouldn't even be in the game because they couldn't afford the licensing fees so now we have to pay them back the part of our money they spend to use the guys they bought with our money in the first place??? How absurd is that. That's like me buying milk in a store. When I buy milk next time the owner only gives me an empty bottle and tells me the milk costs extra, because he used the money I paid him to buy more milk, but now that money is gone, so he has to make more, so now the milk costs extra even though I enabled him to buy the milk in the first place to resell with a profit. How is choosing a headband for your player or using Steph Currys animation more content? Jesus Chris headbands are everywhere in the game yet I have to buy them? I can start a game with GSW and use all of Currys moves yet I have to buy them?

For all I care charge those dudes on the park through the nose. Make them pay 15.000 dollars a month to play in the park, because it's extra content, make them mortgage the house to Ronnie2k for a headband in the park. But keep that filthy shit out of a game I paid 50 bucks for. You got my money, I paid you the last 5 years as well, no give me my fucking game you greedy bastards.

Last edited by hedop on Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree with your point about 2k releasing a game every year. And I agree with some of your frustrations.

I also agree that the grind in 2k to get certain things far exceeds what it should, and maybe my comparisons are a little off. I still believe my points hold some validity, but I don't disagree with some of your points about the crazy grind for a game that has a release every year, and that 2k seems to be making it even more of a grind, almost forcing the user to buy VC if they want to get ahead.

Sorry if it seems I am being insensitive on the subject, I am certainly not. And I agree with many of your points.

I unfortunately can't do anything about it.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Hedop, you realize that I agree with most everything you have said? You know how I am about retro, you see me in the release section. You also see my comments related to the issues where us consumers go "Seriously? how did this get passed production?", I also don't like the VC system at all, I never liked it. I miss the days where VC wasn't even a thing.

We are not disagreeing, in fact we are agreeing, we have different ways of expressing our feelings on here, that's all. I was trying to explain why it is the way it is, and why the video game world is going in that direction, I am not saying it is right or fair.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

I didn't say you could. I just get annoyed with this. Jesus make two versions or make a split. I don't get what's so hard about that... oh yeah... greed. You could simply split the thing. Have MyTeam, have MyPark and also have MyGM and MyCareer. In MyCareer and MyGm you can't earn VC, you can't spend it either, you can't use your player online and you can't use teams from the offline mode in online games. Simple as. So wanna play with Rolando Blackman? Fine... but only if you play with a mate sitting in front of your machine. No online matchups. If you want that: play MyTeam. You want to play with a 7'5 player with 99 speed? Fine. Do that. But only offline. If you want to play MyPark you can create a new player, don't bother with MyCareer and earn all your VC via MyTeam and MyPark. Or just take those modes out completely and make NBA 2konline and be done with it and release and offline version of the game on top of that.

But you know why that isn't possible? Greed. That's why. You said it yourself. Even if you can only play offline with the legends team, a lot of people might not bother with MyTeam anymore and if you can finally build the player you like and have a decent career mode quite a few people might actually say bye bye to the cheater community in MyPark and simply play offline. However that means that there are absolutely no people who will grind for the park or ProAM anymore because you won't be able to grind. Unless you buy VC you will be beaten down and earn next to nothing with your 57 rated player, so people who can't afford to buy VC will also leave the park again lowering the number of participants and potentially VC victims. And that is the circle of greed. And that is why I'm so absolutely disgusted with this game and it's parent company.

Dee4Three wrote:Hedop, you realize that I agree with most everything you have said? You know how I am about retro, you see me in the release section. You also see my comments related to the issues where us consumers go "Seriously? how did this get passed production?", I also don't like the VC system at all, I never liked it. I miss the days where VC wasn't even a thing.

We are not disagreeing, in fact we are agreeing, we have different ways of expressing our feelings on here, that's all. I was trying to explain why it is the way it is, and why the video game world is going in that direction, I am not saying it is right or fair.

Yes I know. Like I said... this stuff gets me upset... I have been playing this game since the Dreamcast days and I'm fucking hurt to be treated like garbage by the guys who make it. That wasn't meant for you that was basically an imaginary rant at 2k.

hedop wrote:True but come on man... it's Chuck we are talking about here. I'm sure he doesn't give stuff away for free but he is loaded and always says so himself... it's not like he needs that money desperately or wants to protect his brand by only giving you the rights of obscene amounts of money like Mike (Mike is actually known for that). I just don't think he'd be more greedy than Shaq. I mean for crying out loud he'd be on the TNT crew as well so he would get paid handsomely on top of everything. So I just don't buy it.

Just because he has money doesn't mean he wouldn't be interested in his fair share, to which he is entitled. That's simply being a smart businessman.

Like I said though, rumours persist that he's just not a fan of video games, and doesn't think much of them, with that being the real sticking point. I've never been able to find a definitive source or quote on that, though; it's just one of those things that gets passed around as "common knowledge". Considering video games aren't really his generation's thing, it's definitely plausible.

hedop wrote:True but come on man... it's Chuck we are talking about here. I'm sure he doesn't give stuff away for free but he is loaded and always says so himself... it's not like he needs that money desperately or wants to protect his brand by only giving you the rights of obscene amounts of money like Mike (Mike is actually known for that). I just don't think he'd be more greedy than Shaq. I mean for crying out loud he'd be on the TNT crew as well so he would get paid handsomely on top of everything. So I just don't buy it.

Just because he has money doesn't mean he wouldn't be interested in his fair share, to which he is entitled. That's simply being a smart businessman.

Like I said though, rumours persist that he's just not a fan of video games, and doesn't think much of them, with that being the real sticking point. I've never been able to find a definitive source or quote on that, though; it's just one of those things that gets passed around as "common knowledge". Considering video games aren't really his generation's thing, it's definitely plausible.

That's ageism man especially since Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem and Bill Russel are older than him and where there basically since they introduced the classic teams and Chuck even had his own game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkley_Shut_Up_and_Jam! waaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day. He's not a fan of social media, never said anything about video games though and I have seen a lot of Chuck over the years.

Dee4Three wrote:Hedop, you realize that I agree with most everything you have said? You know how I am about retro, you see me in the release section. You also see my comments related to the issues where us consumers go "Seriously? how did this get passed production?", I also don't like the VC system at all, I never liked it. I miss the days where VC wasn't even a thing.

We are not disagreeing, in fact we are agreeing, we have different ways of expressing our feelings on here, that's all. I was trying to explain why it is the way it is, and why the video game world is going in that direction, I am not saying it is right or fair.

Yes I know. Like I said... this stuff gets me upset... I have been playing this game since the Dreamcast days and I'm fucking hurt to be treated like garbage by the guys who make it. That wasn't meant for you that was basically an imaginary rant at 2k.

No worries. I've been playing basketball video games since Double Dribble for NES... So I get it.

I also like how the conversation was constructive in here, and I do believe that some good came out of it. I think the feedback in here is solid.

My basketball video game experience goes beyond just sitting in front of a TV myself and trying to get more content, it is the ultimate bonding experience between myself and my two brothers. This is what we do, we enjoy basketball video games together. I also have a connection with many of you in the NLSC community (Going back to 2014), and I wish that some of your concerns go away in future versions of the game. Which is why I like the feedback that is being presented in this thread, and the way it is being presented.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Dee4Three wrote:Hedop, you realize that I agree with most everything you have said? You know how I am about retro, you see me in the release section. You also see my comments related to the issues where us consumers go "Seriously? how did this get passed production?", I also don't like the VC system at all, I never liked it. I miss the days where VC wasn't even a thing.

We are not disagreeing, in fact we are agreeing, we have different ways of expressing our feelings on here, that's all. I was trying to explain why it is the way it is, and why the video game world is going in that direction, I am not saying it is right or fair.

Yes I know. Like I said... this stuff gets me upset... I have been playing this game since the Dreamcast days and I'm fucking hurt to be treated like garbage by the guys who make it. That wasn't meant for you that was basically an imaginary rant at 2k.

No worries. I've been playing basketball video games since Double Dribble for NES... So I get it.

I also like how the conversation was constructive in here, and I do believe that some good came out of it. I think the feedback in here is solid.

My basketball video game experience goes beyond just sitting in front of a TV myself and trying to get more content, it is the ultimate bonding experience between myself and my two brothers. This is what we do, we enjoy basketball video games together. I also have a connection with many of you in the NLSC community (Going back to 2014), and I wish that some of your concerns go away in future versions of the game. Which is why I like the feedback that is being presented in this thread, and the way it is being presented.

Maybe I'll just switch. There is another NBA Jam-like game coming NBA Playgrounds: